Dereksmart5: The Last, Best hope for a FreeSpace

[Jakub]

Our old friend and gaming savior is now at AVault (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=007940;p=1#0000 19).

[JMR]

AFAIK, nothing new here. I don't remember exactly when but over a year ago the Taco Commander claimed he had contacts at the then defunct Interplay and that he was going to acquire the FS liscense. Of course he was full of shit, as usual, and nothing AFAIK ever came from it.

Unless I - Derek Smart - develop an FS3 title, there will never - ever - be another FS title. Deal with it.

LOL

There must be some burried alien artifact in Florida from which both the Taco Commander and Jack Thompson crawled out from.

[Kalle]

Given a choice between no FS3 and FS3 as developed by Derek, I'd go with option #1. Is that even a serious question?

[Gendal]

Never thought I would find myself hoping FS3 would NOT be developed.

[Incendiary Lemon]

The Hardlight productions crew has been working on a non official sequel for several years now. Likely to better what Derek might have done. Pretty much FS2 continued but they've written it with a Branching Campaign.

[Brian Rubin]

I would love to see FS3 myself, but I only feel the folks at Volition could do it justice.

[McBain]

IT BURNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Hump]

Two things would need to happen if I would even consider accepting the guy to do FS3.

1.) Get rid of that fucking renderer of his.
2.) Give a recognized industry veteran who has shipped a decent game final say on the design.

and please, someone DO NOT allow him to buy the IP outright.

[stusser]

This has come up before. There's nothing special about the freespace license. It has no memorable or unique or really even recognizable characters or technologies or ships or plotlines. It's a generic sci-fi plot created to tie together the excellent flight missions. It's wing commander without paladin or angel or hobbes or maniac or tolwyn or even the kilrathi as a recognizable enemy-- the shivans aren't characterized. It's x-wing without luke skywalker, without xwings. It's tie-fighter without the empire, without tie-fighters. It's a license for a 10 year old game that sold horribly. The brand has essentially no intrinsic value.

So derek smart ph.d has it? WHO CARES?

[SwampIrish]

1.) Get rid of that fucking reindeer of his.


So now he thinks he's Santa?

(this was edited to fit my dyslexia)

[TomChick]

Hear, hear, stusser! In fact, this is the main reason that I always thought X-Wing Alliance was an overall better game. A good license is a powerful thing, and the right application of Star Wars can make a guy like me weak in the knees.

It's funny to hear people talk about the Freespace 2 "license", when there's really no there there. It was a great game that had nothing to do with anything remotely license-able, so what do we care if the Supreme Commander wants to try to cash in on a bit of confused nostalgia? Anyone who buys into it deserves what he gets. :)

-Tom

[Bill Dungsroman]

Wow, oops, I guess I accidentally logged into No Mutants Allowed. My bad!

[stusser]

What are you saying-- you're a mutant?

[Wholly Schmidt]

What are you saying-- you're a mutant?
I don't know what he's saying, but No Mutants Allowed is the Fallout forum of jerks.

[MatthewF]

The thread is gone, and that makes me a sad, sad panda.

[Bill Dungsroman]

What are you saying-- you're a mutant?

No. Well, yes, but that's beside the point. I'm saying I agree with you, and this thread is starting to get a "OMG BETHESDA WILL ROOWIN FALLOUT3" flavor about it. And that flavor...is catass.

[MatthewF]

Except for that fact that it's Bethesda, and, well, this is Derek Smart.

[stusser]

I get it... I was being snarky. Sorry.

[Luke M]

So derek smart ph.d has it? WHO CARES?

Actually, I'm not sure if Derek actually has the Freespace license.

Getting the license is trivial. And given that FS2 tanked, couple with Interplay's financial troubles, it was a cheap proposition.

However, I decided to keep my money and focus on my own properties primarily because after seeing the responses from some of the FS fans, I just said f*ck 'em. (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=007869;p=1#0000 14)

So he skips out on a license that is less bland than his Universal Combat/Battlecruiser tripe (and really, what isn't?), and blames it on the fans. +1 to Derek's psychotically egocentric version of reality. I wonder what the truth is.

Edit: Closer to the truth:


Anyway, there's too much money involved for the license. Couple that with the vehemence I was faced with, I just figured I'd spend my money on my own properties. (http://forums.avault.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=006267;p=1#0000 09)

[Efthimios G.]

He actually said "I just said fuck 'em" for the fans of a license he was looking into buying? Eh, why, what is the logic behind it? Why curse the fans of a game you do not have anything to do with? Confused.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

The logic is that Smart is free to say whatever he's thinking because his core audience will continue to buy his games.

I think more developers should feel as unconstrained as he does in their dealings with the gaming public. These Fallout fans don't help anybody; they are a non-constructive force in the world of the industry. If developers can't say fuck 'em, that's like they can't dismiss ANYONE'S opinions. Who would they NOT be obligated to respect?

I would rather see publishers blaze their own trails in a frank and unassuming way, not pretending to get along with everyone and agree with every suggestion. That mushmouthed bullshit has made both sides of all common customer service an agonizing ordeal of raw shame for anyone on either side of the interaction who has not yet been branded with the Mark of the Beast. A dev calling it as he sees it has NO DOWN SIDE. Take it for what it is: a benediction on the spirit of the truth.

[Efthimios G.]

Of course the developers should not listen to the fans and even better tell them to go fuck themselves. In turn the fans are free to return the favor by replying to the developers by not buying the game. Sounds good to me.
I had a very short conversation (by email) with D Smart about 6 years or so and he seemed very straightforward, honest and willing to fight to create his games. Good for him. I still don't think it makes any sense to say "fuck them" to your (not anymore?) future customers. In fact, for some reason I find this extremely stupid thing to say.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Yeah, 'cause he was really going to win them over -- after they talked about how Smart was a one-man disaster area for games, and all his games sucked, and they would hate whatever he did with the license, and really he ought to just put a bullet in his head -- by simply not saying fuck.

Maybe it's not too late! Maybe he can say "unfuck you!"

I wish Smart was here now, so he could show you three screens of angry text and some custom smilies. I think this time it's called for. If these guys want to give it to Smart because of the way they see his track record, that's fine. But if Smart wants to disagree with less than TOTAL RESPECT, that's fine too.

[Efthimios G.]

Well of course if they actually started this and called names then I understand as an individual to say, at least, fuck them. It still isn't the best thing to do as a business man.

[Backov]

Why are you trying to ascribe sanity to Dr Smart?

[MatthewF]

It's easy to act straightforward when you're a raving illegitimate lunatic. Thing is, he even has trouble doing that. The guy is not exactly known for his truthful nature, and just because he's willing to tell people to fuck off doesn't mean he's being straightforward. We're talking about Derek Smart MD DDS PhD here, a guy who bans people from his forums for asking technical support questions after buying his broken software and not being able to get it to work. He flails away like some Tourettes-induced maniac at the slightest inkling of criticism or technical issue with his software. For god's sakes, the last thing this guy needs is anyone's respect.

Some developers "listen too hard" to their fans, and that's definitely a problem. As a developer for our titles I've always prided myself on being straightforward with fans, but I always manage to do it without being arrogant, telling them to fuck off, or banning them. There's a fine line between telling it like it is and being a dick, and if you walk it correctly you'll ultimately be respected by the majority and not reviled like Smart is.

[HRose]

Why are you trying to ascribe sanity to Dr Smart?
Because he is a genius. Sometimes.

And because his games would be great if they didn't suck.

[stusser]

Please do not open your booklets until instructed to do so. In 500 words or less explain why Derek Smart is an on-again/off-again genius, list three "wacky" hobbies, pick a favorite superpower: levitation or invisibility, quote totally nonpertinent excerpts from your blog from six months ago, make us laugh then cry then puzzle us, make us wait for it, then make us laugh again. As always, spelling and grammar count for 25% of your final grade. Only broken english will be accepted.

Open your booklets. You have 35 minutes.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Derek Smart hovers somewhere in the realm between genius and not-genius -- a thing I'm qualified to judge, because as is well established in another post, Roger Ebert's career has made me an all-knowing supergenius. Thanks Ebert, you suck. He has an awareness of what would make a good game if it worked, but has trouble making it work. This makes his development efforts somewhat Sisyphan... yet who does not feel kinship with Sisyphus? And in this particular instance his actions have been the right ones. Devs do not have to bow down to jerks on a message board.

My wacky hobbies are flensing, gout, and playing those crazy video games.

Is it D&D levitation where you can only go up and down? If so, I'd have to go with invisibility, especially if the invisibility includes clothes -- although I'll strip if that's what's necessary to get into the girls' locker room. If by levitation you mean actual free flight, then levitation wins out, but only barely. The siren song of the girls' locker room would forever haunt me, making me wonder if I had chosen... poorly.

I don't have a blog, but as you can see over at UK Resistance, Sega may not realize that some of its fans are creepy shut-ins. Maybe they can be useful for some strange purpose.

If Smart would only hire me, I'd tear through this board in a fucking viral marketing RAMPAGE the likes of which the internet has never seen before. The subject line of all my posts would be as you see it above.

I'm sure Bill Huffman is a very successful indivual who leads a rewarding and fulfilling life.

What's the deal with Duke Nukem Forever, anyway? How do you propose we discover the truth? 'Cause I don't think just waiting will do it.

...

In India, there's holy stuff shaped like cocks.

[Rywill]

I blame Bill for all these weak imitations. Bill, think of the children. They look up to you.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I blame Flowers.

[Hump]

This thread is why I come here.

[HRose]

Please do not open your booklets until instructed to do so. In 500 words or less explain why Derek Smart is an on-again/off-again genius, list three "wacky" hobbies, pick a favorite superpower: levitation or invisibility, quote totally nonpertinent excerpts from your blog from six months ago, make us laugh then cry then puzzle us, make us wait for it, then make us laugh again. As always, spelling and grammar count for 25% of your final grade. Only broken english will be accepted.
This (http://www.cesspit.net/drupal/node/999) can work?
Unless you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque on your way to the water cooler and ended up at the ass end of Alpha Cygni when you were clearly *told* to go to Tau Ceti, how could you miss the action?

[Backov]

Automatic disqualification for linking to blog as a response.

[MatthewF]

Well, this passage is probably a good indication that you don't really know anything about Dr. Smart MD DDS PhD:

With the time he is starting to sound more... reasonable. Oddly calm and rational even if still firm in his positions.

BS. He hasn't changed a bit. He still acts the same - hugs and kisses for the delusional fans of his games (those who don't have technical problems anyway, or, more likely, fear mentioning them), raving maniac for everyone else. You must not be reading some of the crazy shit he posts on various gaming boards he hasn't been banned from yet. Also, rational isn't a word I ever thought I'd hear applied to Smart. He won't be rational until he's either dead or comatose.

[stusser]

Don't bother trying to convince people derek is crazy, let them keep talking smack until he threatens to sue them, then they'll believe. It's much more entertaining messing with hrose, when you get right down to it. He's so gosh darn earnest!

[Mattc0m]

Derek isn't crazy! He's my friend! A cuddly, warm friend!

[Bill Dungsroman]

If so, I'd have to go with invisibility, especially if the invisibility includes clothes -- although I'll strip if that's what's necessary to get into the girls' locker room.

What th-? "If that's what's..." Alright U-Mac, you gotta start thinking ahead a little more, y'know?

[Ryan A]

Only the semi-coherent ramblings of HRose and the emotionally fragile stuttering of Efthimios could inspire THE DEFENSE OF DEREK SMART on these boards.

p.s. I'm with Rywill -- the Bill D. imitations are about as lame as all the dorks who went around talking like Pauly Shore in the early nineties.

[MattKeil]

If you read the open letters to PC Gamer and PC Gamer UK (linked to on the blog that HRose linked to above) Smart wrote in response to their UC:AWA reviews, it's pretty clear that he hasn't improved a bit. He doesn't seem to understand the need for a tutorial, more explicit interface, a fully featured print manual, or even a working FPS mode. In response to the criticism about the (utterly broken) FP gameplay, he just responds that UC isn't a FPS and we're lucky there's even FP anything at all, which is completely insane. When the only defense you can muster for your game's shortcomings is "the fans like it like that," I don't even see why you'd bother making sequels.

For fuck's sake, someone with actual talent for design take the UC concept and make something playable out of it. Before it proved to be vaporware, I was actually sort of interested in the Xbox version of UC because I figured Derek would have to end up with something at least borderline playable if you took the keyboard away from him and forced him to use a controller interface. Oh well.

[HRose]

He doesn't seem to understand the need for a tutorial, more explicit interface, a fully featured print manual, or even a working FPS mode.
Actually with the latest package there's a tutorial manual included nearly as big as the game manual itself.

This is probably one of the most fun things about the game. He took dearly all the critics about it. Some examples:
In this tutorial, unless otherwise stated, “click” implies that you left-click using mouse button one. Yeah, it’s the one on the left. Ingenious isn’t it? If you’re not certain which button I’m talking about, stare at the mouse for a bit.
Before you are tempted to change anything else, click on the “accept” icon to exit the profile screen and access the Mission Control, Miscon, screen.

At the Miscon screen, you will see several scenarios specifically designed for the commander career. To select the tutorial scenario, click on the one that has, um, tutorial in the name.

You should now see the brief description of the scenario you are about to play. If when playing the normal game you ever decide that you want to make another selection, that’s what the “reject” icon is for. Guess what that does? Pressing the ESCAPE key will also give you the opportunity to quit the game entirely and back to the main menu. But you’re not going to do any of that – and before you chicken out, just click on the “accept” tab and lets move on.
3.0 Commander on the bridge

No, don’t let the title above fool you. You’re as close to being a commander as I am to being politically correct.
Anyway, this jump takes you through hyperspace in which nothing is real. So, don’t be surprised if you see your craft flying through a planet as if it wasn’t there. You are actually in a different time continuum….or some sci-fi nonsense like that.

Standby for jump. You can do this [jump] in one of two ways.

The man-child way is to do five clicks starting from the “command” icon and going to /command craft orders/fly-to/other and finally selecting “Target Alpha” from the list of targets.

For this tutorial, make believe that you’re an experienced commander (as opposed to a sissy man who needs menus and diagrams) and just press SHIFT+9 to do the jump.

Your crew will blabber a bunch of stuff to you – most of which - if you are new to the game, amounts to, well, gibberish.
There are 97 of pages of this, even if it's written big.

I actually think he has done a pretty outstanding work with the documentation. It's the game that is still flimsy on too many aspects.

For example the first time I launched this last new game I was in first person and was able to shoot around (my god the controls are bad) but I couldn't figure out if I was hitting something or not. You see the weapon shooting but you don't see decals or effects hinting whether you are actually hitting something or not. No way to figure out if you are at range and if your weapon would be able to hit a target. No sign of damage till the thing blows up or your target dies. That's a pretty significant problem in a FPS mode where you are supposed to shoot at things.

That's pretty much the same that happens throughout the game. You expect the game to give some sort of feedback in certain ways, but you are always disappointed.

[John Merva]

When the only defense you can muster for your game's shortcomings is "the fans like it like that," I don't even see why you'd bother making sequels.

The way I read it though, that isn't even his defense. Seems to me that whenever there is the slightest criticism of his games he just says 'I don't make games for people to like.' It certainly is an interesting business model and he's just lucky that there seem to be people that are willing to let him get away with it.

Hrose - I'm sorry mate, but reading that excerpt you posted only further confirms all the bad feeling I have about his games. The least he could do is hire a writer with clear, appropriate prose rather than ranting like that. I had hoped that his manuals at least would be professional.

[Alan Dunkin]

No kidding. The manual just appears to be a microcosm of Smart's gaming philosophy: be happy with what a give you, no matter how bad it is or how insulting any of it can be to you.

As from the above, the FPS element of UC is "be glad you have it even if it is absolutely terrible."

The manual seems to be the same way. It's DS' gut reaction to anything he deems critical - if he does do something, he immediately degrades it to be worthless. What kind of manual is it that constantly taunts and insults the reader? What was the point again? To be helpful? Why would anybody want to alienate people in a friggin manual?

If it's the way his masochistic pea-brained fans like it, why doesn't Smart just sell publish & sell the games just to them and stop foisting it on publishers who don't know any better?

--- Alan

[Flowers]

I blame Flowers.

How was I supposed to know he'd freak out if he didn't get into art school?

[Drastic]

The manual seems to be the same way. It's DS' gut reaction to anything he deems critical - if he does do something, he immediately degrades it to be worthless. What kind of manual is it that constantly taunts and insults the reader? What was the point again? To be helpful? Why would anybody want to alienate people in a friggin manual?

Near back when, a couple years after the famous release of the first Battlecruiser, I remember someone attempted the daunting task of an evenhanded review of the current patched state of the whole shebang, on whatever was then the .spacesim Usenet group of choice. You know, sort of the rough abbey that would later become built into a great and glittering cathedral of hate. The drafting table for New Huffalem.

It was a good review, I recall. Touched on the usual facts about the inscrutable interface, various important polish-facets such as wingmen spending a good chunk of time randomly colliding with their escort targets, etc. I appreciated it at the time because the idea of the whole thing appealed, but it was nigh-impossible to get straight talk about it due to the general flamewar sport that accreted round it. (There's a parallel here about C.S. Lewis' sermon about how oysters make pearls out of their own suffering that my language center isn't up to doing more than parenthetically.)

The good doctor was, of course, poised to swoop in, which was done in the usual five hundred word response to each and every sentence. Fire and spleen and piss and vinegar, you know the drill.

The reviewer came back with rather calmly pointing out he was doing his level best to simply review what the game was in the current state, warts and all, and concluded with, paraphrased, "I'm the first to admit BC3K has come a long way since 1.0. But it seems your personality has remained stuck at an early alpha build." Which probably remains the best burn I've seen in the limited cross-section of the whole Smart history, but what really made it stick in my memory was Derek's reaction: it was like a threatened puffed-up snarly dog suddenly shrinking in on itself and rolling over. There was textual *sighs* and whatnot and half-apologies and a "this is hard." Seriously abashed-chastised-toddler in general, which of course only led more weight to the glorious concluding crack about a personality stuck at an alpha build.

Oddly, that memory acted as something of a keystone that's made it very difficult for me to get worked up at all about his periodic mild psychotic breaks.

I have no blog posts about this matter, however, so I accept the F.

[JMR]

How was I supposed to know he'd freak out if he didn't get into art school?

Wouldn't matter anyway as he'd just buy himself an art degree from a diploma mill.

[HRose]

Maybe the game needs boobies.

[shift6]

... his masochistic pea-brained fans ...
Wow. I guess someone's a real shitball for liking a Derek Smart game?

I know that's not your point but Jesus.

[JMR]

Wow. I guess someone's a real shitball for liking a Derek Smart game?

I know that's not your point but Jesus.

Dude come on, have you ever visited the Taco Palace?

Maybe the game needs boobies.

Well it has gorillas with huge dongs (http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2010)

[jpinard]

Derek causes the global warming. Bastard.

And I agree - that damn renderer he uses is a giant piece of colossal,indigent, inbred, malfuscious shit (and no Derek I can't program something better).

I gave him an honest go with Univseral Combat, and it had zero flair, the only consistency anything had was that it was low poly, butt-ugly textures even I could have made blech blech blech

[Bill Dungsroman]

He's got the best free space sim yet made!

[Alan Dunkin]

Wow. I guess someone's a real shitball for liking a Derek Smart game?

I know that's not your point but Jesus.

There's a big difference between liking a game and being a fan.

--- Alan

[HRose]

I'm tired and I won't make much sense. But.

I really don't understand these harsh critics to the game, beside the shit and giggles. Imho, the documentation is really, really well done. The new tutorial manual is well written and explains clearly step by step all you can do so that you can progressively explore some of the possibilities the game offers.

From this point of view there isn't really much to blame.

The interface of the game, after a million of revisions, is one of the best I've ever seen in a simulation game. It has to show tons of informations and after you learn what's the purpose of each part, you realize how much thought there was behind it. And it is functional. It does the work just good, sometime it surprises you.

All the confusion about the NID, TRS, VDD, ASD, TLM, TIR etc... There are way too many acronyms and most of the manual relies completely on them. But, guess what? That's the juice of the game. If he went and rebranded the TRS as "radar" the appeal of the game would just go away. The fun about it is that the game makes you feel like a commander. So all those acronyms are useful for the immersion, to put you in a context. You are overwhelmed by informations because this confusion is part of the gameplay itself.

Learning about the game is probably where MOST of the fun is. And this game has its strength exactly in the fact it is more complicated compared to a simpler, intuitive shooter like, say, Freelancer. They are two different games (and budgets), trying to deliver different types of experiences.

This one is also supposed to be a "simulator". Now I've read plenty of complaints about the interface, all the shortcuts and menus. But I never heard the same complaints about, say, Falcon 4. I WISH Falcon 4 had a well-done, complete tutorial like the one DS wrote.

And finally the myth about bugs. After all these revisions I have to say that the game seems rather stable and solid. In most of its parts. It still has MANY inconsistences, but not directly as "bugs". The flight models suck, the collision system is bad, the terrain render too confusing and inconsistent, FPS controls and feedback are awful, etc... But these are not directly "bugs", they are just the limits of a game that tries to do too many things at once. Which is again both it's biggest problem and resource.

The game is FAR from being a good game but it is also decent for what it wants to be. The harsh critics about the game are more about the wrong expectations of the players than concrete, real problems.

Btw, give a look to this (http://www.3000ad.com/downloads/ucawa/UCAWATutorial.zip) (80Mb) if you want. It's a 10 minute movie made by a player which shows what you are supposed to do through the tutorial and it seems to do a good show of what the game can currently offer. What you see there exists and currently "works". Again it's not enough to make a good game, but it's not too bad either, for a niche game.

[jpinard]

I'm tired and I won't make much sense. But.

I really don't understand these harsh critics to the game, beside the shit and giggles. Imho, the documentation is really, really well done. The new tutorial manual is well written and explains clearly step by step all you can do so that you can progressively explore some of the possibilities the game offers.

From this point of view there isn't really much to blame.

The interface of the game, after a million of revisions, is one of the best I've ever seen in a simulation game. It has to show tons of informations and after you learn what's the purpose of each part, you realize how much thought there was behind it. And it is functional. It does the work just good, sometime it surprises you.

All the confusion about the NID, TRS, VDD, ASD, TLM, TIR etc... There are way too many acronyms and most of the manual relies completely on them. But, guess what? That's the juice of the game. If he went and rebranded the TRS as "radar" the appeal of the game would just go away. The fun about it is that the game makes you feel like a commander. So all those acronyms are useful for the immersion, to put you in a context. You are overwhelmed by informations because this confusion is part of the gameplay itself.

Learning about the game is probably where MOST of the fun is. And this game has its strength exactly in the fact it is more complicated compared to a simpler, intuitive shooter like, say, Freelancer. They are two different games (and budgets), trying to deliver different types of experiences.

This one is also supposed to be a "simulator". Now I've read plenty of complaints about the interface, all the shortcuts and menus. But I never heard the same complaints about, say, Falcon 4. I WISH Falcon 4 had a well-done, complete tutorial like the one DS wrote.

And finally the myth about bugs. After all these revisions I have to say that the game seems rather stable and solid. In most of its parts. It still has MANY inconsistences, but not directly as "bugs". The flight models suck, the collision system is bad, the terrain render too confusing and inconsistent, FPS controls and feedback are awful, etc... But these are not directly "bugs", they are just the limits of a game that tries to do too many things at once. Which is again both it's biggest problem and resource.

The game is FAR from being a good game but it is also decent for what it wants to be. The harsh critics about the game are more about the wrong expectations of the players than concrete, real problems.

Btw, give a look to this (http://www.3000ad.com/downloads/ucawa/UCAWATutorial.zip) (80Mb) if you want. It's a 10 minute movie made by a player which shows what you are supposed to do through the tutorial and it seems to do a good show of what the game can currently offer. What you see there exists and currently "works". Again it's not enough to make a good game, but it's not too bad either, for a niche game.

I'm game for giving it an real go. Which game/version are you talking about?

[HRose]

I'm game for giving it an real go. Which game/version are you talking about?
The game isn't all that different from version to version. Only an experienced player would notice what changed.

The last "version" available is the one branded "A World Apart". I bought it from D2D (http://www.direct2drive.com/305/product/Buy-Universal-Combat:-A-World-Apart-Download) myself, as I wrote in the blog linked above.

You can track the patch progress here (http://www.3000ad.com/downloads/ucawa/ucAWAvcf.html). And there's a log with all the development changes between UC and this last version here (http://www.3000ad.com/downloads/ucawa/ucAWAdev_vcf.html). DS has always done a wonderful work to document the development.

You may have copy protection issues since it registers on your hardware and I think you can only unlock the copy two times at this moment. After that you would have to ask to Derek Smart himself, which may be not too easy..

Then don't blame me if you feel you have thrown your money away ;p

[MatthewF]

I'm tired and I won't make much sense. But.

I really don't understand these harsh critics to the game, beside the shit and giggles. Imho, the documentation is really, really well done. The new tutorial manual is well written and explains clearly step by step all you can do so that you can progressively explore some of the possibilities the game offers.

I for one have been eagerly awaiting game documentation that insults my intelligence as a player. Please link me to where I can buy this amazing game!!!!

From this point of view there isn't really much to blame.

You've already said that you don't think it's a good game. You can't have it both ways.

The interface of the game, after a million of revisions, is one of the best I've ever seen in a simulation game. It has to show tons of informations and after you learn what's the purpose of each part, you realize how much thought there was behind it. And it is functional. It does the work just good, sometime it surprises you.

All the confusion about the NID, TRS, VDD, ASD, TLM, TIR etc... There are way too many acronyms and most of the manual relies completely on them. But, guess what? That's the juice of the game. If he went and rebranded the TRS as "radar" the appeal of the game would just go away. The fun about it is that the game makes you feel like a commander. So all those acronyms are useful for the immersion, to put you in a context. You are overwhelmed by informations because this confusion is part of the gameplay itself.

What a load. If changing a confusing acronym to what it actually means destroys the appeal of the game, there wasn't much appeal there to begin with.

Learning about the game is probably where MOST of the fun is. And this game has its strength exactly in the fact it is more complicated compared to a simpler, intuitive shooter like, say, Freelancer. They are two different games (and budgets), trying to deliver different types of experiences.

No, no, no, no, no and no. Playing the game should be where "most" of the fun is. That's one of the most twisted perspectives I've ever heard. If the fun ends with the tutorial, the game sucks. End of story.

And finally the myth about bugs. After all these revisions I have to say that the game seems rather stable and solid. In most of its parts. It still has MANY inconsistences, but not directly as "bugs". The flight models suck, the collision system is bad, the terrain render too confusing and inconsistent, FPS controls and feedback are awful, etc... But these are not directly "bugs", they are just the limits of a game that tries to do too many things at once. Which is again both it's biggest problem and resource.

Dude. All of those things are major, major issues. Bad collision, a poor flight model in a space simulator, bad terrain, poor controls, the list goes on. I don't understand what you're defending. "Limits of a game that tries to do too many things at once" is not, I repeat, NOT a defense for why these games always end up trainwrecks. There are countless decent games that achieve a high level of depth and are still able to have, say, working fucking collision. You'd think after 15 years he'd be able to make it so objects actually stop when they hit each other. You know, I've heard people defend his games, but never have I actually seen someone who acknowledges how terrible they are but still stand up for them. He's had 15 years. It's time to move on.

[HRose]

I for one have been eagerly awaiting game documentation that insults my intelligence as a player. Please link me to where I can buy this amazing game!!!!
Yes, but I really care more about a guide that does its work (making me understand the game *clearly*) than your delicate feelings.

Beside the dubious humor the guide does its work. And I also found it as a pleasant read. Those sarcastic comments, in fact, are useful to give things a perspective. For example when he explains between two ways to do an action, defining what you "could" do and what you "should" do.

The fact that he defines something as "dumb" is informative to let you learn how to play the game properly, and not just play it.

You've already said that you don't think it's a good game.
In the sense that I wouldn't recommend it to someone else. It has a lot of flaws (many also easily solvable) but I also like what it tries to do and I can enjoy it.


What a load. If changing a confusing acronym to what it actually means destroys the appeal of the game, there wasn't much appeal there to begin with.
Yeah. This is the same as creating a "lore" and realistic world for a game. Why don't we define all ships like "Bigass ship #1", "SmallerShip #2". Or simulating the personnel, the voice comms, the alarms going off. It's all about "make believe" and the acronyms are the technical level that you appreciate in a simulation.

This is why in Falcon 4 you have to press 50 keys just to take off. It's part of the immersion and this kind of game IS about technicism. Having grids, marks, number on the screen, this is all about making you feel in a sci-fi simulation. That's the kind of stuff you would expect if you were flying one.

No, no, no, no, no and no. Playing the game should be where "most" of the fun is. That's one of the most twisted perspectives I've ever heard. If the fun ends with the tutorial, the game sucks. End of story.
I didn't say that you stop having fun past the tutorial, I said that learning is the basic mechanic of EVERY game, especially a simulator.

After you figured out all the possibilities and toyed with them enough, the game can get repetitive and predictable. This happens again for every game.

Dude. All of those things are major, major issues. Bad collision, a poor flight model in a space simulator, bad terrain, poor controls, the list goes on. I don't understand what you're defending. "Limits of a game that tries to do too many things at once" is not, I repeat, NOT a defense for why these games always end up trainwrecks.
Trainwreck for you. DS does just what he wants to do and managed to still be around doing that. He has some players who like his games and keep buying them. I really don't find the hostility excused here.

That the games are more or less broken, we already know. But that's the limit of an indie product with this scope.

[MatthewF]

Well, you seem to be a fervent worshipper of the dark cult of Derek, so I'll leave you be. But just to clarify, you did not say this:
I didn't say that you stop having fun past the tutorial, I said that learning is the basic mechanic of EVERY game, especially a simulator.

You actually wrote:
Learning about the game is probably where MOST of the fun is.
That's completely different than what you claim you said. You wrote it. So I answered it.

[Myth]

I have bought "Battlecruiser" in its various iterations over the years and as I played each one, warts and all, I came to the realization that I like the idea of Derek's games a heck of a lot more than games themselves.

The feature set of the series has always been impressive from neural networks, advanced AI , a huge dynamic universe with ongoing space battles in other parts of the solar system, a large array of ships, stations, races, and planets you can actually land on and explore.

Great on paper...isn't this the "holy grail" that all space sim fans are looking for?

However the implementation has always been poor. The interesting part of the game is the journey and the promise. The destination is utter disappointment. The promise fails on all levels.

Neural network??? Space battles occuring in far away systems? Nah, you enter a sector, and some random things are activated, like a mercant ship landing at a space station, random enemies jump and attack, friendly ships spawn in (from the space station?) attack the enemies, you attack the enemies. When enemy health is diminished, enemies flee and attempt to jump at the nearest gate, or are destroyed. Nothing exists outside of the system that you are in at the moment. It's all done with smoke an mirrors. Repeat ad nauseum.

Hrose, you point out that the game is interesting to learn, and I agree with you up to that point. However once you learn the ins and outs of the game, and start exploring the galaxy, you realize that there is nothing before you but a huge sterile universe. There is absolutely nothing in the gamplay that immerses you, or makes you feel that you are part of something bigger than yourelf.

There is the scripted campaign of course, but these have always been extremely buggy where the scripts fail when you are not at the exact same place at the right time to activate the next script trigger.

At one point Derek was discussing creating a "News Network" that would update and let you know what was going on in the Universe, that there would be dynamic missions, you could hail ships, bases in the far reaches of the galaxy would request supplies, and military aid and whatnot.

Derek eventually said that this was too complicated and would never be done, so after that he has released the same old game over and over again with the same tired gameplay. Instead he developed an extremely shoddy and laughable first person perspective for his games that exhibits the same sterility, randomness, and purposeless gameplay that is evident through out the rest of the games.

I still have the the PDF printed "extra" manual from the patched orginal Battlecruiser which has the backstory to the Battlecruiser universe. It is quite an interesting read, with a rich history and sets the stage for the conflicsts between the various races.

It is really a shame that the games don't any justice to what is a really interesting and well thought out millieux.

Last and not least there is the issue with Mr. Smart himself.

He is clearly insane, a very insecure melagomaniac (sp)? and sociopathic to the extreme. If his games displayed even an ounce of the genious he proclaims they have, his eccentricities may be excusable. Unfortunatley his resulting substandard products leave him a charicature, a shell. THE ongoing joke of the industry.

[Myth]

That the games are more or less broken, we already know. But that's the limit of an indie product with this scope.

Can't agree with you are there. There are lots of indi games out there that exhibit creativity, polish and artistic and technical competance.

Derek has always had a publisher from Take2, to Interplay, to Dreamcatcher. The only games he released as an indi were Battlecruiser Millenium (distributed through EBgames) and his latest Universal Combat: A World Apart.

It is important to recognize that the reason why Derek Smart continues to release the same shoddy product over and over to a "niche of a niche" fanbase is because HE chooses to. Being indi has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[MindToyGames]

It is important to recognize that the reason why Derek Smart continues to release the same shoddy product over and over to a "niche of a niche" fanbase is because HE chooses to. Being indi has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Yep...I could have done the same thing with my initial game, Interstellar Trader (and 2), which combined sold over 100,000 copies. I could have milked that thing for ages (ie the Battlecruiser franchise), added 3-D planet models, flashier combat, etc. but I deliberately chose not to; a conscious decision. I liked to think I had more creative integrity than that, and felt a "fanbase" was there to be appreciated and treated with intelligence, not exploited and soaked for every dime I could wring from them. I've had some failures because of it, but hey, no regrets here.

With DS's resources (i'm sure he has more than I do anyway) he could easily do the same thing. I admit i'd be interested to see a more "conventional", non-Battlecruiser game from him.

(The Other) Derek
Stormcloud Creations
www.stormcloudcreations.com

[Efthimios G.]

hey, I remember Interstellar Trader 2. Great game.

I think Derek Smart has the capacity to create this perfect space sim. I also think that his ego doesn't let him accept that his games are not perfect as they are and they need some changes.

[Erik Andersson]

Well, you seem to be a fervent worshipper of the dark cult of Derek, so I'll leave you be.

I'm afraid you seem to be a fervant worshipper of the anti-derek cult whereas HRose appears to be one of the few who can derive some entertainment from the Battlecruiser games without being a fanboy.

Learning about the game is probably where MOST of the fun is. And this game has its strength exactly in the fact it is more complicated compared to a simpler, intuitive shooter like, say, Freelancer. They are two different games (and budgets), trying to deliver different types of experiences.

No, no, no, no, no and no. Playing the game should be where "most" of the fun is. That's one of the most twisted perspectives I've ever heard. If the fun ends with the tutorial, the game sucks. End of story.

Even though you seem to think you understand what he is saying you actually don't understand it at all. For example I would say that the best part of the original Neverwinter Nights was experimenting with the character creation possibilities in the 3rd edition D&D rules. For you that statement would apparently mean that the game sucked, end of story. Even though I don't consider NWN a great game I wouldn't say that it sucks, it was fun enough to play for a while, and I assume that HRose feels the same about Battlecruiser.

[Kalle]

I think we've moved away from the topic at hand here which was this.

The Freespace games are among the best computer entertainment ever made. Derek Smart could never do justice to the name which, even if Tom finds it bland, I have a lot more positive associations to than Star Wars. Hell, Derek could make a Star Wars game and I wouldn't mind. It's not like he would be fucking up a legacy of great games with the Star Wars franchise.

[HRose]

Yep...I could have done the same thing with my initial game, Interstellar Trader (and 2), which combined sold over 100,000 copies. I could have milked that thing for ages (ie the Battlecruiser franchise), added 3-D planet models, flashier combat, etc. but I deliberately chose not to; a conscious decision. I liked to think I had more creative integrity than that, and felt a "fanbase" was there to be appreciated and treated with intelligence, not exploited and soaked for every dime I could wring from them.

I don't agree here. I just wouldn't be interested if DS went with something completely different. I don't see why it's wrong continuing to develop the same concept, in particular one that has SO MUCH potential but that still cannot be reached due to scope.

Tomorrow you can finally achieve what was a limit till today. It's a good model for me. The fact that these games have so many limitations and so many flaws is the very first reason why it makes sense to keep working on them.

[madkevin]

For example I would say that the best part of the original Neverwinter Nights was experimenting with the character creation possibilities in the 3rd edition D&D rules. For you that statement would apparently mean that the game sucked, end of story.

To be fair, I would agree with that statement. If experimenting with the character creation with the best part of a given RPG, then what you got there is a crappy RPG.

Of course, I'd also argue that learning to play UniBattleCruisAl ComThousand is about as much fun as undergoing root canal surgery with a stick of wood for anaesthetic.

[MatthewF]

I'm afraid you seem to be a fervant worshipper of the anti-derek cult whereas HRose appears to be one of the few who can derive some entertainment from the Battlecruiser games without being a fanboy.

Even though you seem to think you understand what he is saying you actually don't understand it at all. For example I would say that the best part of the original Neverwinter Nights was experimenting with the character creation possibilities in the 3rd edition D&D rules. For you that statement would apparently mean that the game sucked, end of story. Even though I don't consider NWN a great game I wouldn't say that it sucks, it was fun enough to play for a while, and I assume that HRose feels the same about Battlecruiser.
For someone who isn't a fanboy he really seems to act like one. He acknowledges that the games are terrible, but he's still defending them. He even defends a manual that's designed to insult the player in some weird masochist way. Why? What about that attitude do you think doesn't spell F-A-N-B-O-Y?

If the fun part about a game isn't the game itself, it's safe to assume that the game sucks.

[Ryan A]

Wait a second here, just so we're clear:

HRose rants on and on (and on and on) at any given opportunity about what crap Blizzard's World of Warcraft is.

But he's willing to throw Universal Combat and Derek Smart a bone?

[JMR]

Maybe one of Derek's sockpuppets infiltrated QT3 :O

[Erik Andersson]

For someone who isn't a fanboy he really seems to act like one. He acknowledges that the games are terrible, but he's still defending them. He even defends a manual that's designed to insult the player in some weird masochist way. Why? What about that attitude do you think doesn't spell F-A-N-B-O-Y?

If the fun part about a game isn't the game itself, it's safe to assume that the game sucks.

I think the primary thing that doesn't spell fanboy is that he actually wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, combined with the fact that he doesn't seem to think that the game is great. If you think HRose is a BC fanboy you probably haven't visited the official forums. From the few examples of the tutorial posted here I can also see why someone would defend it. It might not be very professional, but it seemed helpful and amusing at least, which is not that bad for a tutorial.

I also don't know where you got the idea that HRose thought that the only fun part about the game was the learning stage, like I said I felt basically the same way about NWN. Even though character creation was more interesting than playing with the finished character I wouldn't say that the game sucked. I guess it's a reasonably good indicator that the gameplay is somewhat lacking though.

[HRose]

Wait a second here, just so we're clear:

HRose rants on and on (and on and on) at any given opportunity about what crap Blizzard's World of Warcraft is.

But he's willing to throw Universal Combat and Derek Smart a bone?
Blizzard and DS don't work with the same budget. I think.

I would recommend WoW (never, ever said it is crap), I wouldn't recommend one of DS.

And there's plenty to criticize about both.

[MatthewF]

I think the primary thing that doesn't spell fanboy is that he actually wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, combined with the fact that he doesn't seem to think that the game is great. If you think HRose is a BC fanboy you probably haven't visited the official forums. From the few examples of the tutorial posted here I can also see why someone would defend it. It might not be very professional, but it seemed helpful and amusing at least, which is not that bad for a tutorial.

I also don't know where you got the idea that HRose thought that the only fun part about the game was the learning stage, like I said I felt basically the same way about NWN. Even though character creation was more interesting than playing with the finished character I wouldn't say that the game sucked. I guess it's a reasonably good indicator that the gameplay is somewhat lacking though.

Here.

Learning about the game is probably where MOST of the fun is.

[Erik Andersson]

I know that he thinks that learning about the game was best part of the game, and I know that you think this means that the game sucks. I don't really understand your point though, first of all he didn't say that learning about the game was the only fun part about the game which is what you seemed to assume.

In fact, I'd say that in quite a lot of cases the most fun part is learning about the game mechanics and thinking up new strategies or similar things, but I don't mind this at all. As long as I'm somehow entertained by a game I don't care so much where the entertainment value comes from, as being entertained is the only thing I expect from a game.

[MatthewF]

Not a big fan of semantics, but fine: according to him the fun MOSTLY ends at the tutorial. Remember, he says he doesn't like the game. If learning is where "MOST" of the fun is, and he dislikes the game, one could be led to the conclusion that the tutorial is the only part he enjoyed. That's how I arrive at my point.

[Erik Andersson]

Well, it's a little more than just semantics and I also think he said that the game was "decent". Although I suspect you made your point up mostly to troll HRose I actually think it's an interesting opinion, and one I don't see very often.

Black & White is another game that would suffer from the same problem, and again many (including yourself I suppose) would say it sucks. I had fun playing with the creature and experimenting with teaching it various things, but after the tutorial was the over the main idea of the "game" part was apparently to take your creature away and make you pick up trees one by one. Since I didn't consider this part very entertaining B&W is one of the very few games I bought and didn't finish, but I still don't think the game sucks.

[MatthewF]

I see what you mean, and no, it was not intended as a troll. My view is a bit narrower than yours. I like the meat in games; you know, the stuff that really makes it tick and ultimately is what defines a classic. The trim is just that, trim. It can make a good game better, I think, but it can't make a bad game good.

[scharmers]

I would have loved Universal Combat when I was 13 or so, i.e. when I still had an active & expansive imagination not beaten down & crushed by years of self-abuse & living under three republican presidents.

Now I just want the pretty lights and flashing colors. Quake 4 was just kick-ass in that extent.

[Charles]

Hear, hear, stusser! In fact, this is the main reason that I always thought X-Wing Alliance was an overall better game. A good license is a powerful thing, and the right application of Star Wars can make a guy like me weak in the knees.

It's funny to hear people talk about the Freespace 2 "license", when there's really no there there. It was a great game that had nothing to do with anything remotely license-able, so what do we care if the Supreme Commander wants to try to cash in on a bit of confused nostalgia? Anyone who buys into it deserves what he gets. :)

-Tom

Be that as it may, execution is often more important than content. And absolutely no one has ever come close to matching FS2 for execution.

Regardless, I still had more fun and was more immersed by FS2 than any other space combat sim, including all the wing commanders and the star wars games.

In fact, I'd say for space combat sims, execution *is* everything. Fuck that up, and you've delivered a piece of shit.

As far as I'm concerned anyway. Feel free to scrollwheel this opinion.

[TomChick]

I don't think Derek Smart was considering buying the license the Freespace 2 IP, not its execution. As far as I know, Volition retains those rights in perpetuity. :)

I still had more fun and was more immersed by FS2

Awesome!

-Tom

[Charles]

I don't think Derek Smart was considering buying the license the Freespace 2 IP, not its execution. As far as I know, Volition retains those rights in perpetuity. :)

Well, yes. We all know Derek can't make a game. He's proved that many times over. I also agree that the license doesn't imply the execution; chances are no one would accurately capture what volition had short of just releasing mission packs and graphics updates and then directly reproducing everything else.

Also, something that was in stusser's post that you agreed with (though you may not agree with the particular point) which was sticking in my mind was that the shivans weren't characterized. I think about that, and I can't see why that's a bad thing. They weren't supposed to be. They were just a hostile alien race that no one could communicate with. How do you characterize that? Why would you want to? The mere act of doing so would change them in to generic sci-fi badguy 2851. Much of what I liked about the freespace series was the whole feeling of futility that it gave you. An alien race with near overwhelming power, immunity to your weapons, and no chance at communicating with them sets the stage for a sci-fi setting which *is* different from a lot of what's out there. The vasudans were the characterized bad guy, at least in the first game. The shivans came in to mix things up.

I just see that as something that no one else has really done all that much. Even in books and such, you don't see that kind of thing too often. Or at least, not in the kind of stuff I read. The Inhibitors in Alastair's Reynolds Revelation Space universe were close, but they were still characterized in some fashion. I just like the idea of a no-nonsense ruthless antagonist who doesn't even bother attempting communications while wiping you out.

It gave the setting a real feeling of desperation: The only chances were the long shots. It wasn't going to be settled by diplomacy. And on top of that, you didn't have some kind of crap story on top about how they are evil, with some guy in a big hat pontificating in that Typical Bad Guy Way(tm).

[BaconTastesGood]

The Inhibitors in Alastair's Reynolds Revelation Space universe were close, but they were still characterized in some fashion.

They were characterized a lot, far more so than I wanted. Reynolds is a brilliant hard sci-fi expositionist, but goddamn his writing is just awkward at times. Any opportunity he can get to talk about some technology he'll go on for like six pages, but then he literally made the nearly impossible task of hijacking a lighthugger from the Ultras an off-screen, inter-frame occurrence.

I was mightily irked at how anthropomorphic he made the Inhibitors seemed since he gave us third-person omniscient analysis of their history, motivation, techniques, technologies, etc. It ruined any sense of mystery.

I just like the idea of a no-nonsense ruthless antagonist who doesn't even bother attempting communications while wiping you out.

Saberhagen's Berserkers?

[Charles]

I agree about Reynolds. And the Inhibitors would've been much better had you not known a god-damn thing about them.

As for Berserkers, your mention of them is the first I've heard. A quick google says they are something similar to the Inhibitors?

Either way, they aren't good as a main course, but they certainly serve to spice up a meal.

[MindToyGames]

I don't agree here. I just wouldn't be interested if DS went with something completely different. I don't see why it's wrong continuing to develop the same concept, in particular one that has SO MUCH potential but that still cannot be reached due to scope.
Tomorrow you can finally achieve what was a limit till today.

It's troublesome for a few reasons: A. He's proven after numerous iterations that he either can't or won't make a deep AND fun AND accessible game with the current BC franchise (IMHO and those of many others). Some ideas look good on paper but just don't work in execution. I actually threw away a 40% completed game before because I knew, after playing it, that it just wouldn't be much actual fun, despite its (in my mind) scope and potential.

I agree with you to a point, though. To use my little game again: Trader 2 was a better game overall because I had a bigger budget, more experience and the feedback of the community from the previous version to make it a better game. I had the capability to achieve more than the first time around and make real substantive changes (in terms of looks, features and plumbing) to make the game a better experience, and that's what a sequel should be, in my mind. No other reasoning justifies a sequel, for me.

I'd be interested to see him apply some of those grand ideas on a more solid, conventional game structure, and see what would happen (of course, ironically, i've had a few game critics tell ME the same thing, so who knows).

Derek
Stormcloud Creations
www.stormcloudcreations.com

[BaconTastesGood]

Either way, they aren't good as a main course, but they certainly serve to spice up a meal.

One more comes to mind -- the bad guys in Anvil of Stars and Forge of God. It's interesting that in all three cases (Inhibitors, Berserkers, and Greg Bear's guys) all three enemies are attracted to civilizations that have become 'threats' by advancing beyond a certain stage, as opposed to just randomly choosing societies to annihiliate.

Of course, in cheeze sci-fi there's ST:NG's Borg and ST:OS's Planet Killer.

[Damien Neil]

They were characterized a lot, far more so than I wanted. Reynolds is a brilliant hard sci-fi expositionist, but goddamn his writing is just awkward at times. Any opportunity he can get to talk about some technology he'll go on for like six pages, but then he literally made the nearly impossible task of hijacking a lighthugger from the Ultras an off-screen, inter-frame occurrence.

I rather liked that, actually. It gave me a sense of the increasing stakes and scale--by that point in the story, fighting a bunch of Ultras is a minor footnote compared to the other threats the characters are dealing with. (I also liked the point much later on at which you realize that the surviving characters have themselves become Ultras somewhere along the way.)

And it's not as if plenty of other things didn't go BLAM! in a most satisfactory fashion.

As for Berserkers, your mention of them is the first I've heard. A quick google says they are something similar to the Inhibitors?

Classic stories by Fred Saberhagen. The Berserkers are the original implacable killer machines from the stars: They're a race (if that's the word) of machines dedicated to exterminating all life. Nobody knows who built them or why, although most people assume they exterminated their creators long ago. It's worth reading some of the Berserker stories if you can track them down, for historical context if nothing else--many later authors have been influenced by them.

[XPav]

Baen's re-releasing some Berserker stories in compilations, so they're pretty easy to find.

[Charles]

One more comes to mind -- the bad guys in Anvil of Stars and Forge of God. It's interesting that in all three cases (Inhibitors, Berserkers, and Greg Bear's guys) all three enemies are attracted to civilizations that have become 'threats' by advancing beyond a certain stage, as opposed to just randomly choosing societies to annihiliate.

Of course, in cheeze sci-fi there's ST:NG's Borg and ST:OS's Planet Killer.

Right, but the only reason you know that the inhibitors are choosing intelligently who to exterminate is because of the characterization and the view inside. You don't get that with the shivans, which is probably why I like them. Why are they trying to kill you all? Because they found you.

[stusser]

The shivans' lack of characterization is not necessarily a bad thing for the gameplay. It does mean that there's nothing particularly memorable about the enemy. All we know is they're mysterious and want to kill us, we have no details. This obviously diminishes their value as intellectual property.

Most books, sci-fi or otherwise, characterize the enemy. They are more emotionally effective if the reader can emphasize with their actions. It's particularly compelling when the reader can imagine themselves performing the same dastardly deeds under the same circumstances. Books that don't characterize the enemy at all tend to either be stark fables, almost morality tales (ala berserker), or the battle with the enemy is pushed to the side because the real story is about interpersonal relationships.

[Kalle]

...and where in your little analysis of stories does FS2 fit in exactly?

The Shivans were plenty memorable through their *actions*. That no motivation was given only heightened the feeling of tense desperation you had as you were trying to stop the onslaught.

[Charles]

This obviously diminishes their value as intellectual property.

You know, this is the reason why Lara Croft has big tits, and why the marketing departments make design decisions nowadays.

Not everything about a piece of fiction has to be marketable, and the mere act of forcing it to be diminishes it, as far as I'm concerned. This drive eventually forces everything to be the same. I mean, why didn't we just slap some bad costumes on the shivans and some bad dialogue and call them Shivrathi? I mean, worked for wing commander!

[stusser]

Oh? Which actions of theirs were so memorable? They're implacable enemies with really big ships and they want to kill us. The only specific action I can rememeber is when they blew up the vasudan's homeworld.

And again guys, I wasn't making a value judgement about the FS2 story. I thought it was a perfectly servicable story, actually, and the shivans made fine enemies. All I'm saying is as a marketable property, which is what this thread is all about, they fall short.

[John Merva]

Just looking through the old forums in a bored moment and saw this:

http://www.quartertothree.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=358

instantly made me think of this thread. Scroll down for Derek explaining how he runs his forums and tech support.

[MatthewF]

Nothing new there. He's been saying that stuff for a long, long time.